Crimes and offenses; preemption of local regulation and lawsuits relative to firearms, ammunition, and other weapons; provide for a definition
HB120 amends Georgia’s firearms preemption law to add a detailed definition of “extreme risk protection order” and to bar enforcement of such orders in the state. The bill defines the term broadly to include laws, orders, or measures that temporarily or permanently seize firearms, accessories, or ammunition without a contested court case, as well as federal or state actions that restrict firearm possession or require surrender of firearms unless the person has been convicted of a violent felony or is otherwise prohibited under state law.
The bill would prohibit state agencies, local governments, and state or local law enforcement from enforcing any federal or state extreme risk protection order against a Georgia citizen, and it would also prohibit those entities from accepting federal funds for that purpose. It creates a private right of action for people harmed by enforcement, authorizes injunctive relief and damages, allows the Attorney General to sue, requires expedited hearings on injunction requests, waives sovereign immunity, and imposes a civil penalty of $50,000 per occurrence on a political subdivision or law enforcement agency whose officer knowingly violates the law.
HB120 would significantly expand Georgia’s existing firearms preemption statute by expressly limiting state and local participation in enforcement of extreme risk protection orders, often associated with “red flag” gun laws. It would affect state agencies, political subdivisions, and law enforcement agencies by removing authority to enforce covered orders, restricting receipt of federal funds tied to such enforcement, and exposing violators to civil liability, attorney’s fees, and a substantial per-occurrence penalty. The bill also creates new enforcement mechanisms through private lawsuits and Attorney General actions, and it overrides sovereign immunity defenses for claims brought under the new subsection.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to reflect a strongly pro-gun-rights, anti-red-flag-order position. The bill’s structure suggests its sponsors intended to create a firm legal barrier against both state and federal extreme risk protection orders being carried out by Georgia authorities. Because no transcripts or vote history are included, there is no documented opposition or support in the supplied record, but the policy direction is clear and likely to be politically contentious.
The central point of contention is whether Georgia should allow any state or local enforcement of extreme risk protection orders, especially when those orders are issued under federal authority or are designed to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed dangerous. Supporters would likely frame the bill as protecting due process, Second Amendment rights, and state sovereignty, while opponents would likely argue that it undermines public safety tools intended to prevent gun violence and interferes with cooperation with federal law enforcement. The bill also raises legal and fiscal concerns because it authorizes lawsuits, waives sovereign immunity, and imposes a $50,000 civil penalty on agencies for knowing violations.